[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: reasons for split of libavcodec54 and libavcodec-extra-54, missing codecs and a metapackage.



Hi Jonas,

On 23.11.2014 20:03, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If you stumble across a license violation in Debian - be it in
experimental, backports, freeze or oldstable - file a very severe
bugreport about it.  Yes, so severe that the issue *must* be dealt with,
and if by no othere means then by removing the package from Debian.

You need not do analysis across the whole distribution - if you find a
single violation then report that single violation.  Others might then
look at that single violation and consider "hmm, I wonder if there's a
pattern to this...".

In this thread we are discussing how we can ease avoidance of this kind
of violation, but consequence of us not easing it do not mean other
package maintainers need not care, but that they have a larger burden
caring more manually.

As I understand this particular case, Debian doesn't violate the license direc. It would only be violated if a Debian user distributed one of the GPL v2 programs using the GPL v3 libavcodec-extra.
Therefore I don't consider this problem currently as release-critical.
That would be different, if libavcodec-extra was the default.

If you are interested in fixing license issues, feel free to take care of removing the non-distributable image tests/lena.pnm [1] from the libav source package.

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png#Licensing


Reply to: